Logical Structure Of Naya Method Of Jainas

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269200/1

Page #1

PUIK BALCEROWICZ
PMI (1970). Hemacandra. Pramana-mimämsd translated by Satkari Mookerjee and Nathmal Tatia. Varanasi: Tara Publications.
WIU
Shastri, Indra Chandra (1990). Jaina Epistemology. P. V. Research Series No. 50. Varanasi: P. V. Research Institute.
STP. Sammati-tarka-prakarana by Siddhasena Diväkara with Abhayadevasüri's Tatvabodha-vidhdyin (ed.), by Sukhlal Sanghavi and Becardas Dosi, Vol. I & II, RBTS VI-1,2. Kyoto, 1984. [Reprinted from the original edition published in 5 vols... Gujarat-para-tattva-mandir-granth avall 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, Gujarat-pură-tattvamandir. Amdäväd, 1924-1931].
Tatia, Nathmal (1951). Studies in Jaina Philosophy. Varanasi: P. V. Research Institute. TBh. Umäsvati: Tartvärthädhigama-bhäsya. See: TS.
TBV. Abhayadevasüri: Tattva-bodha-vidhāyini. See STP.
Thanamga (1) Thanamga-suttam and Samaväyämga-suttam (Sthänänga-sutra and Samaväyanga-sutra) (1985). Editors. Muni Jamb@vijaya. Jaina-AgamaSeries 3. Bombay: Shri Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyalaya. (2) Thanamgasuttam And Samavdydigasattam with the Vetti of Acarya Abhayadeva Sari (1985). Editors. Sägarinanda Süri. Lala Sundarlal Jain Agamagranthamälä 2. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
TS. Umäsvamin: Tattvärtha-sutra. Edited together with Tattvärthadhigama-bhasya by M. K. Mody. BI No. 1044. Calcutta, 1903-5.
TSa. Santarakṣita: Tattva-sangraha. Edited together with Kamalasila's Panjika by Embar Krishnamacharya with a Foreword by B. Bhattacharyya. 2 vols, GOS 30-31. Baroda, 1926. [Reprinted: 1984).
TSaP. Kamaladila: Tattva-sangraha-panjikā. See: TSa. TSVA. Vidyananda Pätrakesarisvämin: Tattvärtha-sloka-vartikālamkara. Edited by Mancharalal. Bombay: Ramacandra Natha Rangaji, 1918.
Upadhye, A. N. (1971). Siddhasena Divakara's Nydydvatara (edited by the late S.C. Vidyabhusan with English Translation, Notes etc.) and with the Vivrti of Siddharsi as well as The Text of 21 Dvätrimsikäs and the Sammai-suttam; Vinayavijaya's Nayakarnika edited by... with and Introduction, Bibliographic Review, Indices etc. Bombay: Jaina Sahitya Vikäsa Mandala.
Vaidya, P. L. (1928). "Introduction', in Nydydvarära (ed.), See: NA. (2), pp. vii-xliii. VS. Kanāda: Vaidesika-sütra. Edited with the Commentary of Candrananda. Muni Jambūvijayaji. Gaekwad's Oriental Series. 136. Vadodara / Baroda: Oriental Institute, University of Baroda, 1961.
VSU. Sankara Misra: Vaidesika-sütrmpaskāra. Edited Vidyasagara Bhaṭṭācārya. Kalikatä (Calcutta), 1886.
VSV. Candrananda: Vaidesika-sutra-vṛtti. See. VS.
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD OF THE JAINAS*
The (usually) sevenfold method of conditionally valid predications, known as the doctrine of viewpoints (naya-vada), constitutes an important element of the Jaina theory of multiplexity of reality (anekantaväda), perhaps the best known and certainly the most interesting and most vehemently criticised Jaina contribution to Indian philosophy. A detailed exposition and comprehensive analysis of the anekantavada- that would also comprise the relation of the naya-väda to its two complementary procedures, viz. the method of the four standpoints (nikṣepa-vada, nyasa-väda) and the method of the seven-fold modal description (sapta-bhangi, syäd-väda) is beyond the scope of this paper. Here, I wish to propose a certain interpretative basis for the doctrine of the often misinterpreted naya-väda, as the main objective of the paper. In my analysis, I shall deliberately in order to avoid addressing an over-generalised notion of 'the naya doctrine of the Jainas', which would be a sasa-viṣāna-like kalpana - refer mostly to the particular understanding of the theory of the nayas as it is recorded in Umäsväti's' Tattvärthadhigama-bhāṣya, Siddhasena Diväkara's Sammati-tarka-prakarana, Siddharṣigani's Nyayavatāravivṛti and Mallisena's Syad-vada-mañjarī, and only occasionally to other Jaina works (e.g. Yasovijaya's Jaina-tarka-bhāṣā). It is only afterwards that we can see if precisely the same model is shared by other Jaina thinkers.
Ontologically speaking, the theory of multiplexity of reality (anekantavada) rests on the conviction that the world forms a complex structure, every part of which enters into specific relations and interdependencies with other parts of the complex whole. The conviction that things relate to each other by an infinite number of relations also has recourse to the specific concept of substance (dravya) as being characterised by origination (utpada), continued existence (sthiti) and annihilation (bhanga) and being endowed with qualities (guna), modes (paryaya) and with directly experienced and verbally inexpressible transient occurrences (vivarta, vartana). Accordingly, no facet of reality, no entity or event should be analysed without its individual ontological context, as if abstracted from its temporal, spatial, causal and other
Journal of Indian Philosophy 29: 379-403, 2001.
2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers Printed in the Netherlands..

Page #2

PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
relations; at the same time a vast range of properties can be predicated of a given entity with equal right, in so far as each of them seems equally justified due to the infinite manifoldness of inter-dependencies, including various temporal and spatial perspectives. An attempt to express this complex structure of interrelations has - one might have the impression - necessarily led to contradictions. Such contradictions however can easily be resolved, according to the Jainas, when individual points of reference for each and every assertion are taken into consideration and they cease to be unconditional.3
JOU
Thus, on the epistemological level, each thesis automatically entails its antithesis: no thing can ever be absolutely predicated of, or even be known, by way of dichotomic categories of big - small, good - bad, existent nonexistent, true false, etc. The model cannot be described as dialectical, however, in so far as the synthesis is still contingent upon its corollaries being rooted in the same scheme of interdependencies.4 Despite the fact that any assertoric sentence can only be relatively true," this is by no means tantamount to professing scepticism. The Jainas are quite explicit that truth is warranted not only through cognitive criteria (pramana), but also thanks to the feasibility of omniscience (kevala), that transcends all seeming contradictions that ensue from relative assertions."
The impossibility of uttering an unconditionally valid statement about reality, which is the direct consequence of the epistemically relative status of every predication, could theoretically lead to at least one more - beside scepticism - approach of an all-inclusive, positive character." Two contradictory conclusions derived from one and the same thesis do not have to falsify the initial thesis (e.g., 'things arise from a cause," 'there is motion, there is time,' 'there is a part and the whole, etc.). Such two seemingly contradictory conclusions should only make us aware of the fact that they may and indeed do- pertain to different
contexts.
Similary to the Nyaya realistic standpoint that there is nothing in our consciousness, even images in the state of dreaming, that is bereft of any objective basis, viz. that is purely a figment of our conceptualisation, as the Vijñäna-vädin would like it, the Jaina hold that some justification and objective basis (a kind of rational alambana) in the world can be found for every statement about the world. Furthermore, one and the same sentence uttered in two different points of time or with two different intentions, i.e., as having two different points of reference, is no longer the same sentence, but acquires a homonymic character. That also explains mutatis mutandis why one may utter a couple of sentences
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
with regard to one and the same object or event that only seemingly contradict each other, whereas in fact each of them emphasises another aspect of the same thing and expresses the object from its distinctive perspective. It is only owing to inherent limitations of the language that any proposition about an entity - whose ontological correlations are in fact infinite, hence directly inexpressible - seems to yield falsehood, when taken unconditionally. The nayas are precisely such an attempt to determine the truth-value of a proposition by its contextualisation within a given universe of conceivable points of reference. This is accomplished - as I shall try to demonstrate with the help of progressive indexation, and each viewpoint (naya) delimits the context by introducing indices of spatial co-ordinates, temporal factors, linguistic convention, etc. Conditionally valid viewpoints were considered to operate within the purview of, and to corroborate, the theory of multiplexity of reality. From the very beginnings of Jaina epistemology, they coexisted with cognitive criteria (pramana) as an alternative epistemic instrument. Thus, to grasp reality by means of conditionally valid viewpoints is as justified epistemologically as to cognise through cognitive criteria (pramāna), though there are undeniably crucial differences between these two modes of cognitive activity. Cognitive criteria, as the criteria of validity and reliability of our cognition, are thought to describe universally possible noetic procedures that would ensure the acquisition of truth, whereas conditionally valid predications seem to be an attempt to contextualise any given utterance. In other words, conditionally valid predications (naya) express an implicit conviction that a particular sentence or utterance functions within its given individual context and it is only within the confines delineated by this context that the sentence retains its veracity.
381
The assumption of the manifold character of reality is thought by the Jainas to imply that every situation can be viewed from infinite angles, and each and every one of such perspectives can be reflected in language. Accordingly, one may predicate of any situation a- theoretically infinite number of predications, each of them being only conditionally valid, viz. restricted to its particular angle; but traditionally only seven basic conditionally valid viewpoints are distinguished: (1) the comprehensive viewpoint (naigama). (2) the collective (sangraha). (3) the empirical (vyavahāra), (4) the direct (rju-sutra). (5) the verbal (sabda), (6) the etymological (samabhirudha) and (7) the factual (evambhūta, ittham-bhava). The septuplet is occasionally claimed to exhaust all possibilities of the predicating of an object and to make use of all conceivable optional perspectives an object could be viewed from."

Page #3

These are further grouped into two major classes, and two such classifications are most common. The first model subsumes the first three nayas under the substantial, or substance-expressive viewpoint (dravyarthikanaya, dravyastika-naya), and the remaining four under the attributive, or mode-expressive viewpoint (paryayarthika-naya, paryayâstika-naya),12 The second model classifies the first four under the heading of the object-bound viewpoint, 'operating by means of object' (artha-dväreṇa [pravṛtta]), and the remaining three under the speech-bound viewpoint, *operating by means of speech element' (sabda-dvāreņa [pravṛtta]),13 Occasionally the purely sevenfold division is found as well, viz. the cases when the seven viewpoint are no longer organised into larger units.14
Since the seven viewpoints have been frequently dealt with,15 a more detailed description here seems unnecessary. For the sake of convenience, I render here two relevant passages of Tattvärthadhigama-bhāṣya that form quite a handy introduction to the problem:
I: [1] Speech elements that are expressed in inhabited localities (sc. colloquially) [have] their meaning; and the comprehension of [such a] meaning of speech elements [is what] the comprehensive viewpoint, which grasps collectively partial [denotations of a speech element, consists in]. [2] The collective viewpoint is the synthesising of one facet out of all [possible facets] of things. [3] The empirical viewpoint has an extended meaning, similar to [the way] common people [understand it], as in the conventional practice. [4] The comprehension by way of the denotative acts concerning the existent and present objects is the direct viewpoint. [5-7] The denoting according to the meaning is the verbal viewpoint. [5] The cognition of an object through a speech element already well-known on [account of] such [categories like] name etc. is the accurate [verbal viewpoint]. [6] The variance (sc. denial of any equivalence) among existing meanings is the etymological viewpoint. [7] The factual viewpoint [refers] to the momentary manifestation [of an object] and to the meaning [of the word denoting it],"16
II: [1] When one says "pot" what [is meant] is this particular substance (sc. thing) produced by the effort [of a pot-maker], with a rounded, elongated neck [and] a rounded edge at the top [as well as] with a spherical container below, [which is] suited for fetching and carrying water etc., [and has been] finished off by secondary operations [like baking]. [Accordingly.] the comprehensive viewpoint [consists in] the comprehension without [making] any distinction between such an individual [thing] furnished with particular features or [things]
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE WALA METRUU
دور
belonging to its class.17 [2] The collective viewpoint [consists in] the comprehension of, [say.] present, past and future pots, distinguished by the name and other [standpoints (nikṣepa)], whether with regard to one [individual] or to many [things belonging to its class].18 [3] The empirical viewpoint [consists in] the comprehension of precisely such [present, past and future things like pots, grasped by the collective viewpoint], comprehensible to common people and experts, [and] accessible to the conventional practice just as they are gross objects.19 [4] The direct viewpoint [consists in] the comprehension of precisely such [particular things grasped by the empirical viewpoint] which are existent [here] (sc. which are being perceived here) and are present (existing now),20 [5] The accurate verbal viewpoint [consists in] the comprehension of precisely those [objects, grasped by means of the direct viewpoint, like] pots, that are present, that comprise one of [such categories like] name etc. [and] that are already well-known.21 [6] The etymological viewpoint [consists in] the variance (sc. lack of any equivalence) in the understanding of precisely such present [particular things grasped by the accurate verbal viewpoint], like [the case of two expressions:] "contemplation" and "meditation". 22 [7] The factual [viewpoint] means the grasping of the meaning mutually dependent on subtle momentary manifestation [of an object] and the meaning [of the word denoting it, but] only [in the case] of these [present objects grasped by the etymological viewpoint].23-24
What is conspicuous in the above account of the sevenfold description is that each viewpoint is directly related to the one preceding it and represents a further restriction of the point of reference. This fact is clearly pointed out for instance by Umäsväti, who consistently relates every subsequent viewpoint with the one preceding it (tesv eva, teşv eva satsu, teşv eva samprateșu, teşäm eva, teṣām eva sampratānām, etc.) and who emphasises the hierarchical, subordinating relation that links and arranges the viewpoints according to the scope of their respective contexts. The gradual decrease of the field of reference is conjoined with the ongoing specification of the context, with progressive enrichment of the linguistic tools, with the growth of the potential of the language and with the precision of expression. It is emphasised that contradictions involved in this theory are only apparent, in so far as each of the utterances has a different point of reference.25 What is significant is that not some abstract, eternal sentences are dealt with in the method. of conditionally valid predications, but particular concrete utterances pronounced in a particular situation.

Page #4

INC WILAL STALIUKE I WA MUHIMU Siddharşigani explicitly states that to determine the truth-value of an utterance we have to take into account at least the intention of the speaker and the linguistic convention, beside the denoter-denotatum relation. Thus, the scheme would be more or less as follows:
ulterance
intention
0
linguistic convention
Now, in view of the Jaina theory of multiplexity of reality, the problem arises how far the respective viewpoints (nayas) are true, since they refer to one property of a thing that by its nature is endowed with infinite properties. Cognitive criteria convey the truth by nature, in so far as they grasp 'objects possessed of infinite properties. 26 But in verbal practice, every statement is by necessity restricted to one aspect, in accord with the maxim, frequently repeated in NAV: 'all utterances function with a restriction.? Is therefore, partial truth a truth at all? There would not be any doubt in the case of a statement that would in one breath reveal the whole truth about an object, viz. all its facets. However, it is a practical impossibility to accomplish this in one sentence or expression, all we have at our disposal are verbal means that allow us to single out only one property at a time. Would that mean that in our daily communication we deal with fiction and are doomed to communicate plain falsehoods? It is not merely practical demands of verbal communication that compel us to eventually admit the truth of such partial statements. In fact, any such utterance that is destined to be partial could be an instantiation of a conditionally valid predication (naya). Accordingly, not every statement of partial reference we utter yields falsehood. The criterion of truth here is the contextual dependence of the utterance. As long a particular statement picks out one aspect without rejecting all its ramifications it remains true.31 Therefore, neither is the relation characterised by the association of the denotatum and the denoter' (vācya-vācaka-bhava-laksana-sambandha) a one-to-one relation, nor is determining the truth-value of an utterance a straightforward process of the sort:
truth-value
Model 2.
To account for other factors that determine the context, the provisional scheme of interpreting an utterance might look as follows, whereby 11.12 ... In stand for additional factors alluded to e.g. in NAV.29.28 by prayoker abhiprayadi, and in SVM.28.56-60, p. 161.13. vaktur abhipravānām):
utterance
intention
linguistic convention
utterance
truth-value
Modell
To pose an unimaginatively trivial question: Is the Sanskrit sentence Devadatto 'sti ('Devadatta is.] true or false? Is it an existential proposition? Is the predicate (e.g.. "tall', 'fat' etc.) perhaps not expressed? Certainly, what we lack is its context. What if "for instance, to a person standing at the door, etc.. [leading) into a hall filled with many people, with his mind wobbling: "Is there possibly Devadatta here or is (he) not?" someone says. c.g.: "Devadatta is (here]!" In this particular context, the statement Devadatta is 'merely excludes his possible non-existence in this place, it does not exclude other people (tad-asambhava-matrani vyavacchinarri, na sesa-purusantarani).
truth-value
Mile 3.

Page #5

386
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
387
of the utterances a. . ... belonging to a class Fof formulas we understand a simple model:
I =
The method of the seven viewpoints (naya.vdda) is meant to provide a consistent framework for interpreting utterances, for the septuplet of the nayas is held to comprise all such interpretative factors (see p. 3 and n. 11). This bold claim does not even though it may seem at first to do so, stand in contradiction with the general opinion that, since the multifaceted reality has infinite attributes, there are infinite ways (nayas) of expressing them. Any partial statement, which is by definition contextdependent, is said to represent an incomplete account' (vikaladeša) and its point of reference is delimited by a particular naya." Accordingly, the seven conditionally valid predications subsume all such context modifiers as 'intention, linguistic convention, etc. under one heading. or category, and serve as indices, or context-indicators (parameters), in what seems to be the model that adequately represents the naya-scheme (Model 4).
in which is the domain of admissible interpretations (i.e., it represents a class of conceivable individuals denotable by the utterances a, 8. ....); I is a class of indices i delimiting the context (i.e., I indicates potential circumstances in which the utterances a, 8. y... might be meaningfully communicated): A comprises i-indexed classes of actual denotata. In other words, A, is a particular class indexed with a given iel, or the i-interpreted class, which groups actual individuals that find themselves in circumstances described by an index 1. The truth value of the i-interpreted utterance - viz. either lolli = 1 for truth or llalli = 0 for falsity-depends on the actual context represented by the circumstances delimited by elements of the class I indices) in the interpretation I.
The archetypal index of what we may call the CATLES model is circumscribed by the following co-ordinates:
utterance
inder
(1)
i =< cat,l.e, 8 >,
truth-value Model 4.
where the variable c refers to the class C E D of possible denotata of the utterances a, . ..., the variable a designates a particular individual selected from the class C circumscribed with the index c, viza is an element of the class C, the variable i specifies the point of time of the reference (viz. the present moment): the variable ! stands for the prevalent linguistic convention in accordance with which a given utterance a, 3.7... is used and understood (ie., I confines the means of denoting a given individual to a set of conventionally chosen expressions); the variable e indicates the etymology or other verbal means accountable for the diversification of the meaning of apparent synonymical expressions a, 8.7... (viz., e describes an equivalence relation between etymology or derivation of a given word and its meaning: thus, for the range of expressions a, 3.7... we have three different co-ordinates ca.eg.ex...): the variables represents the present status of the individual that is the denotatum of either a 8 or
.... viz., its present state in which it actually manifests the quality denoted by either a. or ...
In the case of the first conditionally valid predicative type, viz. the comprehensive viewpoint (naigama) - according to the proposed interpretation - the parameters of the index defining the context of
sien word
From the exposition of the conditionally valid predications, it is apparent that an utterance is not simply either true of false, but in order to ascertain its truth-value one has to determine the situation it tends to describe, viz. the context in which it is communicated. In other words one should ascribe the utterance to a specified viewpoint type. The above model comprises all meaningful context-indicators under the index 1. The interpretation of an utterance is arrived at, or its truth-value obtains - not directly since it is not a binary function (utterance - truth-value)-through the intermediary of context-defining parameters. Formally speaking, the adequate context for an utterance is determined by means of indexation, and thereby only the utterance yields either truth or falsehood. By the so conceived context-based interpretation I
sions ,
.ey..
the individ..

Page #6

388
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
389
the utterances a. 8.7... remain indeterminate the interpretation is completely open. Every subsequent viewpoint, however, introduces one new indexical co-ordinate to the index compound and thereby particularises the circumstances the utterance refers to. This situation may be portrayed as follows:
4. the direct (rju-sutra): 5. the verbal (sabda): 6. the etymological
(samabhirudha): 7. the factual (evan-bhūta):
i = < c. {t. x, y, z), p > i =< c. {1, x, y, z). p. 1> i = < c. {1, x, y, z), p. Le >
=
1. the comprehensive (naigama):
(najema: = < > . 2. the collective (sangraha): is 3. the empirical (vyavahāra): i = 4. the direct (rju-sūtra):
i = 5. the verbal (sabda):
i = <0,0,1,1 > 6. the etymological (samabhirudha): i= 7. the factual (evar bhuta): i =
Model 5.
Model 5 Nevertheless, I believe that interpretation (1) and Model 5 is more accurate than Interpretation (I.) and Model 5., in so far as at the empirical stage (vyavahara) the time factor may remain unspecified. whereas Model 5. assigns a certain value to L.
In what we have called the CATLES model, the domain D of possible interpretations of the utterances a, 8.7 € F is mapped onto the class A of actual denotata via the context delimited by i E I. Thus, the truth-value of the utterances a, 3.7... interpreted in I at the point of reference i is represented by lol. 1307, th ... respectively.
As expected, these interpretations - being consistent with theory of multiplex character of reality (anekānta-väida) - are non-exclusive and admit of seeming contradictions. To take the Devadatta Example I of NAV.29 (see p. 384 and n. 32). we may ask whether the answers Yes (a = Devadatto 'sti) and No (-0 = Devadatto násti) given to the question: "Is there possibly Devadatta?' (Devadattah samasti?), really stand in contradiction to each other? For instance, the reply Yes may indicate the situation
Now, one may wonder why Siddhasena Divākara does not include the comprehensive viewpoint (naigama) in his classification of the nayas in STP. at all? I suppose one of the reasons is its non-specific character, or in a way its contextlessness, which finds its materialisation in what has been analysed as the empty contents of the maigama index i=< > above.
Alternatively, the archetypal index may be described as follows:
(1)
i=
El
Devadatto 'still = 1 (for i = naigama),
viz. the affirmative answer to the non-specific question: 'Is there at all any Devadatta somewhere, either an individual or a group of people?' At the same time, the reply No may be interpreted as
El
Devadatto 'still = 0 (i = rju-sutra).
the only difference being that the individual selected from the class c would be specified - instead of the variable a - by means of the quaternary (1,7,, 2) that assigns temporal-spatial co-ordinates to the individual (here the point of reference would be either in the past, present or future), since it is customarily adopted to refer to an individual by the parameters delimiting the individual's position in space and time. Such being the case, the present time variable / of (1) would have to be replaced by the variable p.
1. the comprehensive (naigama) i = < > 2. the collective (sangraha): i= 3. the empirical (yawahara); i =
viz. the negative answer to the specific question: 'Is there this particular Devadatta here and now?'
Accordingly, one may consistently express Devadatto 'sti (a) and Devadatto násti (-a) without contradiction, in so far as what one actually expresses is a. 1 0 . and not a 1-0. What is meant is this: 'There are Devadattas alive in the world. But there is none here

Page #7

390
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE MAYA METHOD
391
and now.' Thus, the claim of multi-faceted reality (anekanta) seems to be safeguarded
Another interesting feature is underscored in the following comparison in Example 2-2:
E2
Devadatto 'still = 0
'Is there any Devadatta, either an individual or a group of people?' - No, for i = naigama.
E2
Devadatto 'still = 1
'Is there this particular Devadatta here and now?' - Yes, for i rju-sātra.
The above combination of E2 and E2' would in my opinion be impossible, for it is counterintuitive to say that "There have never been, there are no and there will be no Devadattas alive in the world. But there is one here and now.'
The rule would be that a meaningful assertion of a more specific naya is warranted by the non-falsity of the more general, viz. less specific viewpoint, or the necessary condition for meaningfulness (not simply for truth or falsity) of the specific naya is the truth of the more comprehensive naya. In other words, the falsity of the more general naya precludes the truth of the more specific one. Perhaps that would be the Jaina solution of the paradox of the seemingly tautological statement that 'a square circle is a circle':
Not only statements but also questions must always refer to a particular context in order to be meaningful (the maxim 'all utterances function with a restriction').
Another problem is how to view the above CATLES model of the nayas. I do not think this is a hierarchical, layered structure of different levels of description in the sense of different languages of metaphysics'. What the naya model is about is not that we chose a level of description to represent the world in terms of either ordinary physical objects or ideal entities, either names and properties and relations or atomic arrangements, either wholes or configurations of some momentary constituents of reality, etc. In my opinion the nayas are indices, or parameters that help us determine the relevant context for utterances, and thus to assign the truth-values to them. Let us have a look at the following passages of the Jaina-tarka-bhäşa: (1) 'Thus, the applied viewpoints grasp the particular and the non-applied viewpoints grasp the universal. Among them, from the perspective of the applied viewpoint all venerable liberated beings have the same form, however from the perspective of the non-applied viewpoint the beings who have become liberated in one, two or three instants are equal only to those beings who have become liberated in the same instant as theirs." or (2) 'Among them, the four viewpoints such as the direct viewpoints etc. accept the predominance of the activity characterised by the right) conduct alone, because it alone is the immediate cause for liberation. However, even though the comprehensive, collective and empirical viewpoints accept that the triad of the right) conduct, scriptural testimony and predilection for truth (constitute) the cause of liberation... As we can see, in all instances the same referring terms are used, only their meanings are specified accordingly to the context. It is not the situation of the shift in terms of various levels of description, e.g. from the level of description in terms of gross objects to the level of description in terms of atoms and quanta; the shift from one naya to another is an approximation and specification of the meaning, without any change in terminology. In the process of specification, we do not switch from the language of physical things such as liberated beings (siddha), black bees (syöma-bhramara) and scriptural testimony to the language of their elements or atomic components such as mental states and noetic occurrences instead of the siddhas), five constitutive colours instead of the black colour of the bee (bhramarasya panca-vamáh) or constitutive underlying scriptural testimony (e.g. respective tenets and moral code prescribed by the scripture). Thus the metaphysical level of description remains the same and we are still in the same world. There are more
E3 *cakram catur-asraka-cakramll. = 0 [for i = naigama)
At the non-specific level of the comprehensive viewpoint there exists no circle that is a square circle. Hence it must follow that:
E3'
l* cakram catur-asraka-cakramll 2 = 0 (for i = sangraha)
At the Level 2 of the collective viewpoint there is no class of circles that are square circles. Consequently it necessarily follows that:
E3" "cakram catur-asraka-cakramll; = 0 (for i = vyavahara) At the Level 3 of the empirical viewpoint there is no single circle that is a square circle, etc.
The Devadatta example of NAV.29 mentioned above (p. 8 and n. 32) highlights one more important aspect, namely both the intentional and indexical character of any posed question, not only of any utterance.

Page #8

392
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
examples to be found in JTBh.2 §8, pp. 15-29 of similar sort that instantiate how the viewpoints function.
We may however speak of levels of description in a qualified sense, i.e. as a convenient verbal way of referring to events that is an approximation of relating to referents tokened by a naya-index. I shall henceforth refer to the indexicalisation or parameterisation model by the term 'indexed level of description' in this qualified sense for the sake of convenience.
To recapitulate, what is taken into account by the comprehensive viewpoint (naigama-naya), i.e. in the first indexed level of description, is a complex of meanings and connotations evoked by an utterance, irrespective of either distinctive features of individuals or of constitutive characteristics representative of a given class. In other words, the viewpoint comprises indiscriminately both the particular and the universal: it grasps a given phenomenon in a most general way and takes recourse to a possibly extensive, all-inclusive context, which is referred to by a particular utterance. The truth-value of an utterance is not directly dependent on the context of the utterance. Clearly, what is meant here is a colloquial, unreflected usage of an unspecified reference, which is at the same time non-indexical. Apparently it is because of its nonindexicality that the comprehensive viewpoint is conspicuously absent from STP. Later, the viewpoint was taken to demarcate the limits of meaningful discourse: 'The comprehensive [viewpoint]... has as [its] scope existence and non-existence."40
As the second step, the scope of the comprehensive viewpoint (naigama-naya) is narrowed down by excluding the particular and laying stress on the universal alone. Thus, the collective viewpoint (sangraha-naya), i.e. the second indexed level of description, pertains cumulatively to a whole class of individuals, which constitutes the denotation of a given utterance, and thereby it forms a basis for any taxonomical analysis.
In the third indexed level of description, the point of reference is further limited to such individual things, or elements of a class, that are directly amenable to practical activity. Since we can practically deal only with a particular specimen of the whole class of objects in everyday practice (vyavahāra), not with the whole class, it is the individual thing that is selected for practical purposes. And we directly refer to it by means of a linguistic unit of general denotation that corresponds to the respective class and the truth-value of which is assigned through the empirical viewpoint (vyavahara-naya), viz. from the nominalist perspective. That is why - especially in early analyses (e.g. TBh.) - the commonplace aspect (laukika) and the conventional practice prevalent
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
among people (lokôpacara) are said to be emphasised in this case. Eventually, the practical aspect means the feasibility, on the part of an object, to become the object of human activity.
393
Successively the direct viewpoint (rju-sutra) views things according to their transitory properties and modes and provisionally neglects their incontrovertible substantial nature and existence as substrata of those properties and modes. In this way, the fourth indexed level of description narrows the point of reference down to the temporal manifestation of an individual, which is concurrent with the instant characterised by the action or by the event of the individual thing exhibiting the transient aspect that is being expressed by the utterance. As a rule this is the present moment, viz. the moment of articulating the speech units.
The fifth indexed level of description, viz. the verbal viewpoint (sabda-naya), or the accurate verbal viewpoint (samprata-sabda-naya) as Umäsväti would like it, inserts still another index of purely verbal reference based on linguistic convention. Here the intentional differentiation between meanings of synonymical expressions, based on different derivation, grammatical construction, syntactical relation, etc.. is neglected. The recognition of the prevalent linguistic convention is tantamount to the linguistic flexibility derived from freedom to use a variety of expressions to denote one and the same event. Accordingly, saying that 'Falstaff met Mr. Ford' is tantamount to saying that 'Falstaff met Mr. Brook', or 'x follows y' and 'y is preceded by x' refer to the same arrangement of events, or Hesperus, as a 'western' star seen in the evening, and Phosphorus, a 'light-bringing' star seen in the morning, both refer to Venus.41 To assign the truth-value of an utterance expressing the identity, users of the language agree upon a conventionally determined selection of verbal expressions that denote a particular individual.
What happens in the sixth indexed level of description, in the case of the etymological viewpoint (samabhirudha-naya), is drawing the distinction among synonymous expressions or (apparent) coreferential utterances, which have up to now been considered equivalent. To cite the well-known example (NAV. 29), although three epithets in an undiscriminating commonplace usage pertain to one and the same god, nonetheless the name 'Indra' refers in fact to a divine sovereign, the appellation 'Sakra' describes a being possessed of might and the epithet 'Purandara' denotes a destroyer of strongholds etc., in the same manner as words like 'Indra', 'pot' or 'man' have different denotata.42
The situation in Level 6 would be opposite to Level 5 of the verbal viewpoint: here synonyms do generate different reflections in mind.+3

Page #9

394
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
395
This approach does not have to indicate that the different referents are necessarily different objects, but the referents can be different complex events, in other words this may still be one and the same thing (considered to be one and the same entity in Level 4 for instance) but involved in different activities or occurring in different contexts. The different mental reflections generated by verbal units would refer to different meaningful events, or different entanglements of one and the same object, but would not predetermine that two different events must necessarily refer to one and the same thing. For instance, Hesperus is indeed something different from Phosphorus, in so far as it is the evening star never seen in the moming nor in the east, whereas the "light-bringing' Phosphorus is never seen in the evening. Still, Venus is something different from both Hesperus and Phosphorus, in so far as it shares both features of being seen in the morning and in the evening. In this way, we may say that eventually the three names - Hesperus, Phosphorus and Venus - have three different referents. What is understood by referent in the contextualised model is no longer a physical entity as such, as it abstracted from the network of its relata, but always some complex event, made up of some substantial substratum (dravya) always co-occurring alongside its qualities (guna), modes (paryaya) and inexpressible transient occurrences (vivarta, vartand). Similarly, in this level, there is room for two expressions 'Walter Scott and 'The author of Waverley' to be able to have different referents in the above understanding, even though they would have the same referent in Level 5.
The narrowest, seventh indexed level of description exhausts the framework of possible points of reference, and the context of the factual viewpoint (evar-bhūta, itham-bhava) is the richest. That is why it is no longer irrelevant here which linguistic expressions we choose to refer to one and the same individual: we may apply only such a term with regard to a phenomenon which describes this phenomenon in its present condition most adequately or the etymology or grammatical derivation of which corresponds most closely to the present state of an object it refers to. This is the context to make distinction between the present state and power of a thing exhibited contemporaneously, on the one hand, and the inherent potentiality or extratemporaneous character of the thing, on the other. The viewpoint lays down the rule according to which, out of a series of synonyms, we select such a term in a given context which describes its denotatum in the present state in the closest possible way, the evening is the only time to see Hesperus.
That the naya method is indeed a hierarchical model in terms of decreasing scope of reference and increasing richness of information, precisely as the CATLES model of nested indices, is confirmed by Mallisena, who extensively quotes NAV.29, in the Syád-våda-manjari:
Each preceding viewpoint has larger domain, whereas each subsequent [viewpoint) has its) province (more and more determined. The comprehensive (viewpoint is more extensive in its) province from the collective (viewpoint), which has as its) province merely the existent, insofar as it has as [its) scope existence and non-existence. The collective [viewpoint) is larger from the empirical viewpoint), which reveals an existent (particular individual, insofar as it shows the amassment (sc. set) of all existent individuals). The empirical (viewpoint) has broader reference than the direct [viewpoint), which has as its province only the present time), insofar as it rests on the province (made up of the three times. The direct (viewpoint) has wider reference than the verbal viewpoint), which shows different things by (reference to the difference in tense (lat.time), etc., insofar as it comprehends what is contrary to that (scope of the verbal viewpoint). The verbal (viewpoint) has more comprehensive province than the etymological (viewpoint), which takes separate synonymous expressions as (characterised by difference of reference (denotata / meaning), insofar as it pertains to what is contrary to that scope of the etymological viewpoint). The etymological [viewpoint) has wider domain than the factual [viewpoint), which asserts that an object is different as something possessed of its) specific activity. Likewise the account [based on) viewpoints, when it functions with regard to its province, follows the method of the seven-fold predication of affirmation and negation
We come across the idea of hierarchically organised model found in the above account frequently in other sources of later origin as well. e.g. in Yaśovijaya's Jaina-tarka-bhasa."
The mention of the method of the seven-fold predication (saptabhangi) in the passage is reminiscent of the pramâna-sapta-bhangi discussed before in SVM., 46 and concerns the relationship of the naya and the pramana, on the one hand, and the relationship of the naya and the doctrine of the seven-fold) modal description (syad-vāda): "However, cognitive criterion is characterised by the ascertainment of the correct reference (denotatumn / meaning) (and) is of the nature of all viewpoints. 47 Thus, the task of describing the proper context and purport of an utterance in a comprehensive manner is no longer with the naya, but is ceded to the pramana.
Mallisena refers to the relationship concerning the proper viewpoint (naya), the defective viewpoint (duraya) and the cognitive criterion (pramana) as follows: 'To say that] "x is exclusively existent" is the defective viewpoint. To say that] "x is existent" is the proper] viewpoint. (To say that] "x is in a certain sense existent" is the cognitive criterion. This differentiation is indeed momentous, for it concerns the role of the modal functor syar (kathamcit) 'in a certain sense, somehow and the correlation of the navi-vāda and syūd-rāda. But this is the issue for another paper,

Page #10

396
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
There is a remark to be made. It is my conviction that the model proffered in this paper accurately describes the structure of the doctrine of viewpoints (naya-väda) as it is represented in some Jaina treatises. However, I do not claim that the model is either the ultimate interpretation (though I hope it to be a useful approximation) or the model that is valid for all instantiations of the naya-väda we come across in Jaina literature. The naya theory came into existence in a gradual historical process, and therefore we may encounter various models with various authors. That is why we should be careful not to impose certain structures that hold valid in some cases onto all interpretations of the nayas. However, what is probably common to them all is, I believe, the general idea of a context-dependent analysis of utterances via a range of points of reference by narrowing down the context through successive stages. It was certainly an ingenious contribution to the philosophy of language and epistemology in general, with its interpretative force being directly proportional to the extent it was misunderstood by rival philosophical schools. With their pragmatic approach of context-dependent analyses of actual utterances, the Jainas seem to have anticipated the ideas to be found much later in CRESSWELL (1973), KAPLAN (1978), MONTAGUE (1970), SCOTT (1970) or STALNAKER (1970).
1. NOTES
The main ideas found in this paper appeared for the first time in a succinct form in Polish in BALCEROWICZ (1994). The present paper was delivered at the 5th Bimal Matilal Conference on Indian Philosophy, 27th January 2001, King's College,
London.
Since there is some controversy about the common authorship of the sutra and the bhasya, I treat TS. (by Umäsvämin?) and TBh. (by Umäsväti?) separately not to predetermine the issue.
Not to be confused with the author (Siddhasena Mahämati?) of the Nyayavatära, who flourished after Dharmakirti, see: BALCEROWICZ (1999), BALCEROWICZ (2000) and BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/a).
3 TBh.1.35: yatha va pratyaksanuminöpamändpta-vacanaiḥ pramäṇair eko 'rthaḥ pramiyate sva-visaya-niyamán na ca tá vipratipattayo bhavanti tadvan naya-vādā iti. In passing, this is precisely the scope for the method of sapta-bhang
3 Cf. STP.1.21:
tamha savve vi naya miechd-dinhl sapakkha-padibaddhol
annonna-nissid una havati sammatta-sabbhäväll
6
This gave rise to such paradoxical contentions that ultimately truth is made up of all false statements, cf. STP.3.69:
baddam miccha-damisama-samaha-maiyussa amaya-sarassal jina-vayanassa bhagavan samvigga-suhihigammassall
To dispense with the soundness of discursive thinking altogether, characteristic for the negative approach of Nagarjuna. would be the third conceivable approach. Probably they were not the innovation of the Jainas, but were rather common
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
intellectual property shared by various groups of early Indian thinkers, including the Ajivikas; cf. Sam.(1).147 (p. 86.9-10): icceydim satta parikammām sasamaiydim satta äjiviydim ccha caukkaṇaiydim satta terasiydim; and Sam V.(1).147 (fol. 130), p. 87.9-12 Sam V.(2).147 (fol. 120): ta eva cajivikās trairäsikä bhanitäh, kasmād? ucyate yasmat te sarvam try-atmakam icchanti yatha: jīvo 'jivo jīvājīvaḥ, loko "loko lokálokaḥ, sad asat sad-asad ity evam-adi naya-cintäyäm api te tri-vidham nayam icchanti, tad yatha: dravyarthikaḥ paryayarthika ubhayarthikaḥ; ato bhanitam: "satta terasiya' tti sapta parikarmäni trairasika-pakhandikäs trividhaya naya-cintaya cintayantity arthaḥ. Cf. also BASHAM (1951: 174-181) and JAYATILLEKE (1963: 151-161, §§212-230).
See Uttar 28.24:
davvāṇa savva-bhāvā savva pamāṇehi jassa uvaladdhāl
savvähi naya-vihihim vitthara-rai tri nävavvoll,
Cf. also TS.1.6: pramana-nayair tad-adhigamah; and JTBh.2 § 1: pramanaparicchinnasyananta-dharmatmakasya vastuna eka-desa-grähiņas tad-itaram sapratiksepino 'dhyavasaya-viseṣā nayah.
10 Cf. NAV.29.12: samkhyaya punar ananta iti, ananta-dharmatvad vastunas, tad-ekadharma-paryavasitabhiprāyāṇāṁ ca nayatvāt, tathāpi cirantanācāryaiḥ sarva-sangrahisaptabhipraya-parikalpana-dvärena sapta nayah pratipaditäh, and SVM.28.56-60 (p. 161.11-15): nayāś cânantāḥ, ananta-dharmatvad vastunas tad-eka-dharmaparyavastitānāṁ vaktur abhiprayāṇāṁ ca navatvāt tatha ca vṛddhāḥ jävaivā vayaṇavaha tavaiya ceva homti naya-vayal [STP.3.47ab] iti.
397
Cf. NAV.29.13: tad evam na kaścid vikalpo 'sti vastu-gocaro yo 'tra naya-saptake nantar-yatiti sarvabhipraya-sangrahakd ete iti sthitam. 12 Cf. e.g., STP.1.3 and STP.1.4-5:
davvatthiya-naya-payaḍī suddha samgaha-paruvaṇāvisaöl padirive puna vayana-ttha-nicchao tassa vavaharoll
mila-nimenam pajjava-nayassa ujjusuya-vayana-vicchedol tassa tu saddätä säha-pasähä sukuma-bhevall
See also PALV.6.74, p. 54.7-9. tatra mala-nayau dvau dravyarthika-paryavarthikabhedat. tatra dravyarthikas tredhä naigama-sangraha-vyavahāra-bhedät, paryayarthikal caturdha rju-sutra-sabda-samabhirudhaivam-bhuta-bhedät. It is entirely absent e.g. from Anuoga or Thanamga. TS. and TBh., NA. or NAV.
13 E.g. NAV.29. The model is followed also in TS. in view of the explicit mention (TS.1.34) of the group naigama-sangraha-vyavahāra-rju-sūtra to which is appended the uniform sabda subcategory, that is subsequently subdivided in the aphorism of TS.1.35. Also TBh. seems to share the model not only because of the absolute absence of dravyårthika-naya and parydyarthika-naya, but also because, in the introductory part (TBh.1.35, p. 32.13-17: nigamesu ye abhihitaḥ śabdās... evam-bhūta iti.). the viewpoints (5)-(7) are singled out by a special preliminary description of their common feature under the head sabda (yatharthabhidhanam sabdam), and because, in the four recapitulatory verses on p. 35. 4-36.2 (esp. in verse 4cd, p. 36.2: vidyād yathartha-sabdam višesita-padam tu sabda-nayam), the stress in laid on the sabda category differently.
E.g. Anuöga 606 (satta mula-navā pannattä tai jahd - negame sangahe vavahare ujjusuë sadde samabhiridhe evambhite) Thonamga 552
15 E.g. by MATILAL (1981: 41-46). The passages mentioned in the present paper
are discussed at length in BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/b).
1 TBh. 1.35 (p. 32.13-18): nigamesu ye abhihitaḥ sabdas teṣam arthaḥ sabdarthaparijñānam ca desa-samagra-grahi naigamaḥ, arthünām sarvaka-desa-sangrahanani sangrahah, laukika-sama upacara-pravo vistṛtartho vyavahāraḥ, satām sampratānām arthānām abhidhana-parijñānam rju-sūtraḥ, vatharthabhidhanam Sabdam. nämäisu
14

Page #11

398
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
prasiddha-parvac chabdád arthe pratyayaḥ samprataḥ, satsv arthesv asarkramah samabhiradhaḥ, vyañjanärthayor evam-bhūta iti.
17 Cf. NAV.29.13: tatrapi ye paraspara-vitakalitau samanya-viseṣāv icchanti lat-samudaya-rupo naigamah; as well as NAV.29.23: vyavahāro 'pi sarvah pradhan pasarjana-dväreṇa kathañcid itarètarăvinirluthita-sāmānya-videṣa-sädhya eva; na hi samanyaṁ doha-vähādi-kriyāyām upayujyate, videsänäm eva tatropayogān, napi viseṣā eva tat-käriṇaḥ, gotva-fűnyānāṁ teṣām vṛkṣādy-avisistataya tat-karanasāmarthyābhāvāt... tasmat kathañcid bhedäbhedinäv evditau, tad-anyatarasamarthakaḥ punar niralambanatväd durnayatām svī-karotiti sthitam.
Cf. NAV.29.13: punaḥ kevalam samanyam väñchanti tat-samaha-sampadyaḥ sangrahaḥ; and NAV.29.24: tad-apaläpi kevala-samanya-pratisthäpakaḥ kad-abhiprayaḥ sangraha-durmaya-vyapadeśam svi-kurute, višesapekṣayaiva sämanya-sthäpakasya sangraha-nayatvad iti.
19 Cf. TBh.1.35 p. 35.9, verse 3cd: lokopacāra-niyataṁ vyavahāram vistṛtam vidya, NAV.29.16: yad idam kiyat-käla-bhävi sthäratam abibhrānam loka-vyavahara-käri ghatädikam bhavatas tättvikam abhipretam tan nākasmikaṁ.... and PALV.6.74 p. 541.11: sangraha-grhita-bhedako vyavahāraḥ.
20
TBh.1.35 p. 36.1, verse 4ab: samprata-visaya-grāhakam rju-sūtra-nayaṁ samāsato vidya, NAV.29.17: tatra rju pragunam akutilam atitanagata-vakra-parityagad vartamana-kṣaṇa-vivarti-vastuno ripam sütrayati nistańkitam darfayarity rjus@traḥ, and PALV.6.74 p. 54, L11-12: fuddha-paryaya-grähi pratipaksa-säpekṣa rju-sütraḥ, NAV.29.19: radhito yavanto dhvanayaḥ kasmimścid arthe pravartante: yathèndratakra-purandaradayaḥ, tesam sarvesam apy ekam artham abhipraiti kila pratiti-vaśād See also NAV.29.13: tatha ye rüdhitaḥ śabdänäṁ pravṛttim väñchanti tan-nivahasadhyaḥ sabda iti, and NAV.29.27: tatad ca kvacid anapeksita-vyutpatti-nimittä ridhitaḥ pravartante...
22 Cf. JTBh.2 §6: paryaya-bhede bhinnärthän abhimanyate, as well as PALV.6.74 p. 54, 1.14: paryaya-bhedat padartha-nānārtha-nirupakaṁ samabhirudhaḥ. See also NAV.29.13: ye tu vyutpattito dhvanīnām pravṛttim väñchanti nanyatha tad-vara-janyaḥ samabhiradha iti, and NAV.29.27: kvacit sämanya-vyutpatti-säpeksäḥ.... 23 Cf. NAV.29.13: ye tu vartamäna-käla-bhavi-vyutpatti-nimittam adhikṛtya fabdaḥ pravartante nanyathēti manyante tat-sangha-ghatitaḥ khalv evambhuta iti. and NAV.29.27: kvacit... tat-käla-varti-vyutpatti-nimittäpekṣayeti.
24TBh.1.35 (p. 33.9-34.7): ghata ity ukte yo 'sau cestâbhinirvṛtta ürdivakundalausthayata-vṛtta-grivo 'dhastāt parimandalo jaladinām äharaṇa-dhäraṇasamartha uttara-guna-nirvartananirvṛtto dravya-višesas tasminn ekasmin viseṣavati taj-jātīyesu vā sarveṣv aviseṣāt parijñānaṁ naigama-nayaḥ, ekasmin va bahusu
và năm&di-visefiteşu sâmpratdtitanagateşu ghatesu sampratyayah sangrahah tes eva laukika-pariksaka-grähyeşûpacăra-gamyeşu yatha-sthülärtheşu sampratyayo vyavahāraḥ, tesv eva satsu sampratesu sampratyaya rju-sûtrah. tesv eva satsu samprateṣu sampratyaya rju-sūtraḥ teşv eva samprateṣu nāmādīnām anyatamagrähisu prasiddha-purvakesu ghateṣu sampratyayah samprataḥ sabdaḥ, teṣām eva sāmpratānām adhyavasaysamkramo vitarka-dhyanavat samabhirudhaḥ, tesäm eva vyanjanarthayor anyonyapekṣartha-grähitvam evambhāta iti. 25 TS.1.35 p. 38.3-4, verse 5:
iri naya-vādās citrāḥ kvacid viruddha ivatha ca visuddhaḥl laukika-viṣayātītās tattva-jñānārtham adhigamyāḥ!!
See NAV.29.10: ananta-dharmadhyāsitam vastu svábhipretárka-dharma-visistam nayati prapayati samvedanam ärohayatiti nayaḥ, pramāṇa-pravṛtter uttara-kala-bhāvi paramaría ity arthas; tasya visayo gocaro mato 'bhipreta eka-desenänityarvadidharma-laksanena visistah para-ripebkyo vibhinno 'rthah prameya-rapam, pramanam evam-vidham evartham grhnäriti svakutena tena vyavasthapanad iti. "That which
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
399
leads to [ie..] which makes one reach [or] which elevates to consciousness - the real thing. (although it is in reality] possessed of infinite properties, as qualified by [only] one property intended by this [viewpoint] itself, is "the viewpoint"; that means: "the reflection which arises in the point of time posterior to the operation of cognitive criterion. Its "province". [ie., the viewpoint's] domain, is "known". [viz.] is intended, as "an object", [viz.] a cognoscible form. [that is] "qualified". [i.e., made] different from other forms, "by [only] one facet" [i.e..] by a characteristic such as the property of impermanence, etc., because it has been established in accordance with the following intention of ours: "cognitive criterion grasps only an object of exactly such a kind (viz. possessed of infinite properties]".
27
NAV.29.28: sarvam vacanam savadharanam iti-nyayah).
25 NAV.29.28: tatas cânanta-dharmadhyasita-vastu-sandaríakam eva vacanam yathavasthitartha-pratipâdakarvät satyam. And therefore, only the utterance which displays the real thing as possessed of infinite properties - since it demonstrates [its] object (denotatum) corresponding to the state of affairs is true."
29 NAV.29.28: na cárvam vacana-pravṛttir, ghato 'yam suklo murta ity-ady ekárkadharma-pratipadana-nisthataya vyavahäre fabda-prayoga-darlandt, sarva-dharmänäm yaugapadyena vaktum asakyatvät, tad-abhidhayakānām apy anantydı. "Yet utterances [are] not used to denote [their objects (denotata)] in such a manner because it is an empirical fact that in the [verbal] communication speech elements are pronounced as related (to their objects (denotata)] by the demonstration of one single property, like "this pot is a white shape," for it is impossible to state all properties simultaneously. even though [speech elements) denoting these (properties are theoretically] infinite." 30 NAV.29.28: na câikáika-dharma-sandartakatve 'py amani vacanāny alīkāni vaktum pāryante, samasta-labda-vyavahäröccheda-prasangät, tad-alikarve tataḥ pravṛttyasiddher iti. And these utterances, although they display (only) one single property, can not be called false because [that would lead to] the undesired consequence of the destruction of the entire verbal communication, inasmuch as if these [utterances] were false, the practice [of the verbal communication] based on them could not be established."
31 NAV.29.28: na ca tad-vacanānām alikata, sesa-dharmântara-pratiksepȧbhävät, tat-pratikṣepa-kāriņām evälikarvät. 'And [such] utterances [predicating] of this [single property in question] are not false, inasmuch as other remaining properties are not disproved [by them). because only [such utterances] that lead to disproving [all] the remaining properties are false."
32 NAV.29.28: yathaneka-purusa-sampürme sadasi dvärâdau sthitasya kim atra devadattaḥ samasti nâstîti va dolāyamāna-buddheḥ kenacid abhidhiyate - yatha devadatto 'stiti.
33
NAV.29.28 tad-vyavacchedäbhiprayena prastuta-vakya-prayogät, prayokirabhiprayad-sapekṣataydiva dhvaneḥ svartha-pratipadana-sämarthyat....because the sentence under discussion is pronounced with the intention of excluding that (sc. merely his possible non-existence here and now), inasmuch as [any] linguistic unit has the efficacy to demonstrate its own object (denotatum) only depending on the intention, etc., of the person who pronounces [this sentence].'
On
'See NAT.29 ad loc.: prayoktr-abhiprayaditi. ādi-sabdāt sanketadi-grahah. account of the word 'etc. the linguistic convention, etc., are included.'] 34 NAV.29.28: na ca väcya-vacaka-bhava-lakṣana-sambandhanarthakyam, tad-abhäve prayoktr-abhipraya-matreṇa ripasyava niyoktum asakyatvät. 'But [that (sc. the role of the intention of the speaker, etc.) does] not [imply that] the relation characterised by the association of the denotatum and the denoter is purposeless because, if this [relation between the denotatum and the denoter were] not [there]. it would be impossible to make use even of the form [of a particular word or a sentence] merely by the intention of the person who pronounces [the word or the sentence]."

Page #12

400
35 NAV.29.28: atah sampurna-vastu-pratipadanabhävad vikalädeso 'bhidhiyate, nayamatena sambhavad-dharmaṇām darfana-matram ity arthah. 'Hence, (such a statement] inasmuch as it does not demonstrate the whole real thing is called the incomplete account, which means that it merely shows [selected] properties that are possibly there in consonance with the opinion of (sc. according to) a [respective] viewpoint."
36 The index parameter 1, which refers to the present moment and means 'now', is also a variable (not a constant!), for clearly the actual meaning of the description 'now' steadily changes along the time axis.
"JTBh2 § 8. p. 23.16-18: tatha viseṣa-grähino 'rpita-nayaḥ, samanya-grahinas cânarpita-nayah. tatränarpita-naya-mate tulyam eva ripam sarveṣām siddhānām bhagavatam, arpita-naya-mate tv eka-dvi-try-ādi-samaya-siddhāḥ sva-samana-samayasiddhair eva tulya iti.
PIOTR BALCEROWICZ
JTBh.2 § 8. p. 23.25-26: tatra rju-sütrådayas carvãro nayas caritra-lakṣaṇāvāḥ kriyāyā eva prädhänyam abhyupagacchanti, tasya eva mokṣam pratyavyavaharitakāraṇatvät. naigama-saṁgraha-vyavahārās tu yady api caritra-śruta-samyaktvānāṁ trayanam api mokṣa-käraṇatvam icchanti...
39 JTBh.2 $8. p. 23.19.
SVM.28.205-206 (p. 167.10-11):... naigamo bhāvābhāva-bhūmikatvād bhimavisayah. See below, p. 17 and n. 44.
41
It is Jonardon Ganeri who drew my attention to the Fregean example.
42
See NAV.29.20: paryaya-dabda vibhinnärthah, prativibhakta-vyutpatti-nimittakatvād iha ye ye prativibhakta-vyutpatti-nimittakäs te te bhinnarthaḥ, yathêndra-ghatapurusa-sabda vibhinnârtha(h). The expression bhinnärtha in the above passage is a hackneyed description and may indeed also be translated as 'having different meanings. The use of vastu in the passage below is less unequivocal, TBV.1.3 (Naya-mimämsd). p. 313.15-21: eka-samjñd-samabhirohaṇāt samabhiraḍhas tv äha -yatha hi viruddha-lingådi-yogäd bhidyate vastu tatha samjña-bhedad api. tatha hi samjñd-bhedah prayojana-vasar sanketa-kartṛbhir vidhiyate na vyasanitavā anyatha anavastha-prasakteḥ tato yavanto vastunaḥ svábhidhayakäḥ sabdas tävanto 'rtha-bhedah pratyartham dabda-nivelät näikasyårthasydnekenäbhidhanam yuktim iti 'ghatah 'kujah kumbhah' iti vacana-bhedad bhinna evarthah, kriya-sabdatvāt vā sarva-fabdanam sarve 'py anvartha eva vacakäh tato 'ghatate' 'kutite kau bhati" iti ca kriyd-laksana-nimitta-bhedät naimittikenâpy arthena bhinnena bhavyam iti 'ghataḥ ity ukte kutah 'kutah' iti pratipattiḥ tena tad-arthasyänabhihitarvät?
Cf. NAV.29.19 on the fabda-naya: na cendra-sakra-purandaradayah paryayasabda vibhinnartha-vācitaya kadäcana pratyante, tebhyaḥ sarvada väikäkära.
parămarsotpatter...
SVM.28.204-213 (p. 167.9-18): pürvah parvo nayah pracura-gocaraḥ paraḥ paras tu parimita-visayaḥ, san-mätra-gocarat sangrahän naigamo bhavabhāva bhumikarvad bhima-visayaḥ, sad-višesa-prakāśakad vyavahärataḥ sangrahaḥ samasta sat-samühdpadariakatvad bahu-visayahḥ, vartamina-visayad rju-sûträd vyavaharas tri-kala-visayavalambitväd analpárthah, kälädi-bhedena bhinnarthöpadarlinaḥ sabdad rju-s@tras tad-viparita-vedakatvan maharthaḥ[.] pratiparyaya-fabdam artha-bhedam abhipsatah samabhirudhac chahdas tad-viparvaydnuyavitvär prabhata-viṣayah. pratikriyam vibhinnam artham pratijänänad evam-bhätät samabhirudhas tadanyathartha-sthäpakatvän mahd-gocaraḥ, naya-väkyam api sva-visaye pravartamanan vidhi-pratiṣedhäbhyām sapta-bhangīm anuvrajati. iti.
45
JTBh.29. p. 14.1-1: kaḥ punar atra bahu-visayo nayaḥ ko valpa-visayaḥ?...
Cf. also JTBh.1 § 64, p. 20.7-10 séyam sapta-bhangi pratibhanga(m) sakalādesasvabhävä vikaladefa-svabhävä ca. tatra pramana-pratipannànanta-dharmatmakavastunaḥ kälädibhir abheda-vṛtti-prädhänуäd abhedöpacäräd va yaugapadyena
31
48
pratipadakam vacaḥ sakaladeśaḥ, naya-visayi-kṛtasya vastu-dharmasya bheda-vṛttiprādhānyad bhedopacarad va kramenābhidhayakam vakyaṁ vikalädeśaḥ. This and similar statements clearly show that the sapta-bhangi method is not restricted to the scope of pramāna, but is applicable to the naya method as well.
47
SVM.28.216 (p. 167.21): pramānam tu samyag-artha-nirnaya-lakṣaṇam sarvanayatmakam.
SVM.28.13-14 (p. 159.17-18): sad evèti durnayaḥ, sad iti nayaḥ, sydd sad iti pramānam.
Anuoga
BALCEROWICZ 1994
BALCEROWICZ 1999
BALCEROWICZ 2000
THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD
BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/a)
BALCEROWICZ (forthcoming/b)
BASHAM 1951
CRESSWELL 1973 JAINI 1920
401
Bibliography
Nandi-suttam and Anuöga-ddäräim (Nandi-sutra and Anyoga. dvārāni). Ed. Muni Punyavijaya, Dalsukh Mälvania, Amritläl Mohanlal Bhojak. Jaina-Agama-Series No.1, Shri Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1968.
Balcerowicz, Piotr: 'Zarys džinijskiej teorii poznania' ('The Outline of the Jaina Epistemology), Studia Indologiczne 1 (1994) 12-67, Warsaw,
Balcerowicz, Piotr Jaina Epistemology in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Critical Edition and English Translation of Logical-Epistemological Treatises: Nydyavatāra, Nyāyāvatāra-vivṛti and Nyayavatara-tippana with Introduc tion and Notes. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Hamburg 1999 (to be published in Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien. Band 53. 1+2 [Institut für Kultur und Geschichte Indiens und Tibets, Universität Hamburg), Franz Steiner Verlag 2001). Balcerowicz, Piotr: 'On the Date of the Nydydvatāra, in: On the Understanding of Other Cultures, Proceedings of the International Conference on Sanskrit and Related Studies to Commemorate the Centenary of the Birth of Stanislaw Schayer (1899-1941), Warsaw University, Poland, October 710, 1999. Ed. by Piotr Balcerowicz and Marek Mejor. Studia Indologiczne [Warsaw] 7 (2000) 17-57.
Balcerowicz, Piotr: 'On the Relationship of the Nydydvarra and the Sanimari-tarka-prakarana, a paper delived at the X/th World Sanskrit Conference. Turin, April 3rd-8th. 2000. To be published in the Proceedings (Indologica Taurinensia). Balcerowicz, Piotr: 'Some Remarks on the Nava Method." a paper delived at the International Seminar on Jainism - 'Aspects of Jainism. 8-9 September. 2000, Warsaw. [To be published in the Proceedings).
Basham, AL: History and the Doctrine of the Ajivikas. London, 1951.
= Cresswell, Max: Logics and languages. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London 1973.
Jaini, J.L.: Tuurvärthadhigama-sutra (A Treatise on the Essential Principles of Jainism). Introduction, Translation and Notes by ... Sacred Books of the Jainas Vol. 2. Arrah 1920.

Page #13
402. .. PIOTR BALCEROWICZ THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF THE NAYA METHOD 403 SSi. JAYATILLEKE 1963 JTBh. = Pujyapada Devanandin: Sarvarthasiddhi. (1) Ed. by Jinadasa Sastri, Sri Sekharama Nemicandra Granthamala 128, Sodasapura 1938. (2) ed. and trans. into Hindi by Phulacandra Sastri, Jnanapitha Murtidevi Jaina Granthamala, Sanskrit Grantha 13, Bharatiya Jnanapitha, New Delhi 1985. = Stalnaker, Robert: 'Pragmatics'. Synthese 22 (1970) 272-289. KAPLAN 1978 STALNAKER 1970 STP. MATTLAL 1981 MONTAGUE 1970 NA. SVM. Thanamga = Siddhasena Divakara: Sammati-tarka-prakarana with Abha yadevasuri's Tattva-bodha-vidhayini. Ed. by Sukhlal Sanghavi and Becardas Dosi; Vol. I & II, RBTS VI-1,2; Kyoto 1984 (Reprinted from the original edition published in 5 vols., Gujarat-pura-tattva-mandir-granthavali 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, Gujarat-pura-tattva-mandir, Amdavad, 1924-1931). = Syad-vada-manjari of Mallisena with the Anya-yoga vvavaccheda-dvatrimsika of Hemacandra. Ed. by A. B. Dhruva. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series No. 83, Bombay 1933. = Thanamga-suttam and Samavayamga-suttam (Sthananga. sutra and Samavayanga-sutra). Ed. Muni Jambuvijaya, JainaAgama-Series 3. Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay 1985. = Umasvati: Tattvarthadhigama-bhasva. See: TS. = Abhayadevasuri: Tattva-bodha-vidhavini. See STP. Tattvartha-sutra of Umasvamin, ed. together with Tattvarthadhigama-bhasva by M.K. Mody, the Asiatic Society, Bibliotheca Indica No. 1044, Calcutta 1903-1905. = Uttarajjhayanasutta (Uttaradhyayana-sutra). Ed. Charpentier, Archives d'Etudes Orientales Vol. 18: 1, 2. Upsala 1921. TBh. = Jayatilleke, K.N.: Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge. London 1963 (Reprinted: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1980). = Bhargava, Dayanand: Mahopadhyaya Yasovijaya's Jaina tarka-bhasa With Translation and Critical Notes. Motilal Banarsidass 1973. = Kaplan, David: 'On the logic of demonstratives,' Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1978) 99-115. = Matilal, Bimal Krishna: The Central Philosophy of Jainism (Anekanta-vada). Lalbahi Dalpatbhai Series 79, Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandira - L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad 1981. = Montague, Richard: 'English as a formal language,' in: Visentini, B. (ed.): Linguaggi nella societa e nella tecnica, Editioni di Comunita, Milano 1970, 189-224. = Siddhasena Mahamati: Nyayavatara. (1) See: BALCEROWICZ (1999). (2) Mahavadi-sri-Siddhasena-Divakara-pranita -Nyayavatarah sri-Rajasekharasuri-viracita-Tippanasamalakrta-acarya-Siddharsi-viracita-Vivrti-sahitah. Ed. by Bhagavandas Harsacandra (Harakhchand), HemacandracaryaJaina-sabha, Ahmedabad - Patan 1917. (3) Nyayavatara of Siddhasena-Divakara with The Vivrti of Siddharsigani and with The Tippana of Devabhadra. Ed. by P. L. Vaidya, Shri Jain Shwetamber Conference, Bombay 1928 (reprinted in Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin No. 1, pp. 1-95, Vaishali 1971). = Devabhadra: Nyayavatara-tippana. See: NA. (All quotations from a new critical edition: BALCEROWICZ (1999)]. = Siddharsigani: Nyayavatara-vivrti. See: NA. (All quotations from a new critical edition: BALCEROWICZ (1999)]. = Manikyanandin: Pariksamukha-sutra. Pariksamukha-sutra of Manikya Nandi together with the Commentary Called Pariksamukha-lagu-vrtti of Ananta Virya, ed. by Satis Chandra Vidyabhusana, BI No. 1209, Calcutta 1909. = Anantavirya: Pariksamukha-lagu-vrtti. See: PA. = Samavayanga-sutra. Sthananga-sutram and Samavayanga sutram with the Vrtti of Acarya Abhayadeva Suri. The text originally edited by Late Acarya Sagarananda Suri Ji Maharaja. Re-edited with appendices etc. by. Muni Jambuvijayaji. Lala Sundarlal Jain Agamagranthamala Vo. 2, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi 1985. = Abhayadeva: Samavayanga-sutra-vrtti. See: Sam. = Schubring, Walter: The Doctrine of the Jainas, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1978. = Scott, Dana: 'Advice on modal logic,' in: Lambert, K. (ed.): Philosophical Problems in Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht 1970. 143-173. TBV. TS. NAT. Uttar. NAV. PALV. Sam. SamV. SCHUBRING 1978 SCOTT 1970